A new system to warn Americans accused of P2P file-sharing was announced in …

Whatever happened to the "six strikes" system that was to help civilize the American Internet?

Three years ago, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) gave up its mass litigation strategy of targeting tens of thousands of alleged file-swappers. Instead, the group announced that it would pursue a "graduated response" system in partnership with Interent providers. Infringement notices would be sent on to subscribers, who would be hit with increasing penalties as the notices stacked up.

Two years passed, and little was heard of the idea. But in July 2011, a White House-brokered deal between Internet providers and rightsholders appeared; AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable were all ready to help "educate" their customers. The deal involved "mitigation measures" beginning with the fifth or sixth alert, which might include "temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter." Internet providers could choose to disconnect users, too, though the deal does not require this at any particular point.

The system would be coordinated by a new group, the Center for Copyright Information (CCI). CCI's website and Twitter account were rolled out on July 7, but neither have been in use since. The organization promised that "participating Internet Service Providers will begin implementing Copyright Alerts in 2011 and 2012" and that "in 2011, the Center for Copyright Information will be formally opened."

But now it is February 2012, and CCI has not begun operation. It has announced neither a director nor the "consumer advocates and technical experts" who were to advise it, and no Internet providers have sent any notices under the program (though some have sent notices as part of their own separate arrangements with rightsholders).

Curious if the consensus behind the deal was falling apart or proving harder to implement than expected, I spoke to several sources in the rightsholder and Internet communities; each agreed to speak off the record, as CCI has yet to make public announcements.

Each confirmed that the project is pressing ahead and that it will in fact launch shortly. CCI has just hired an executive director, and the group plans a set of new announcements once the director is in place and up to speed.

So the system remains on track and notices should be filling up user mailboxes within months. But will it matter? It's hard to say. Three years ago, when peer-to-peer file-sharing was all the rage, the scheme looked more useful (such systems make it possible for a third-party to see what other people are sharing). Now, with HTTP streaming services and "cyberlockers" accounting for significant percentages of Internet traffic, an education campaign focused on P2P use will have less effect.

Still, the industry has always claimed that no particular measure will be a piracy killer and has always sought multiple angles of attack. As the memorandum of understanding (MoU) creating the CCI put it:

While the government maintains a critical role in enforcing copyright law, it should be readily apparent that, in an age of viral, digital online distribution, prosecution of individual acts of infringement may serve a purpose, but standing alone this may not be the only or best solution to addressing Online Infringement. If Online Infringement is to be effectively combated, law enforcement must work with all interested parties, including copyright holders, their licensees, artists (and the guilds, unions and other organizations that represent them), recording companies, movie studios, software developers, electronic publishers, Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”), public interest groups, other intermediaries and consumers on reasonable methods to prevent, detect and deter Online Infringement.